Dinner with a Republican for Obama

I had no idear that this Friday evening would take such an interesting turn.  With all the political handicapping that was going on at Kos, I thought I'd enjoy a nice dinner out with my sister as an alternative to politics.  Little did I know that we'd end up joining one of her staunch Republican friends.

I had met this man once before in May of 2004.  At the time he was wearing one of those little silver circular pins with a star in the middle and at least one diamond on it.  There could have been more diamonds, but that's what I remember from two and a half years ago.  The pin was a sign of a staunch Bush supporter.  It's my guess that he helped raise big money for the Bush campaign.

You can probably imagine how I thought dinner would go tonight. But you may be as surprised as I was at the twists in the conversation if you read below the fold.

First, a little background on this guy.  He's retired from the air force and in his mid sixties. He served in Vietnam all the way through the first Gulf War.  As I mentioned above, I had met him once before in May 2004 and at that time he was a staunch Bush supporter.  From our conversation tonight it's obvious that he continues to vote Republican at the state level.  

When we were re-introduced tonight he remembered having met me before and that we had discussed politics over the grill.  I really wasn't interested in getting into a political discussion with someone who I knew was a Bush supporter so I didn't say anything more than acknowledge to him that yes we had discussed politics and I recalled his fancy Bush pin.  I was thinking smugly to myself that I don't need to say anything more because the recent election results were much more eloquent than anything I could come up with.

As dinner progressed, he and my sister start talking Florida politics and then out of the blue he asks my sister about Kerry and the 2008 presidential election.  She replies with something about his botched joke and then out of the blue he says, "I'm going to vote for any Democrat on the ticket as long as it's not Hilary."  

A whiplash moment for me. He has my full attention now as I rub my neck.  Then when I start to think I'm no longer in danger of falling out of my chair the Republican says, "You know who I really like is that Obama.  I'll vote for him if he runs."

If you have run across some of my prior comments, you'll know that my momma is a big Obama fan and I'm a Gore supporter.  My momma even bought an Obama t-shirt after his speech at the 2004 convention.  My sister says to the Republican, do you remember meeting my mother and her wearing an Obama t-shirt?  He responds yes.

So now I'm wondering if every southern Democratic grandmother has been out recruiting for Obama.  Is there an army of retired southern women out  converting Republicans into Obama supporters?

I realize that when the Republican first mentioned Kerry's name that he is really talking to me instead of my sister. Maybe he's apologizing for his prior support of Bush, maybe not.  You can decide.

Although his statement of support for Obama, or any non-Hilary Democrat, was very interesting to me...what he said next was even more interesting.   It was a way of framing Bush's failure on the Iraq war that I hadn't heard before. Maybe it's been out there and I've just not read those diaries.

The Republican said that the war needs to be fought by the generals not the Whitehouse.  He said having politics dictate military strategy will always end in disaster.  This immediately struck me as a great way for Congress to tell the American people what needs to be done in Iraq.  And if Bush doesn't do it then he's out because we need a President who supports our troops and is someone they can trust.

Congress can convene a "Real" Iraq Strategy Group comprised of generals, not politicans.  The generals to appoint to this Iraq Military Strategy Group are the ones Bush fired for creating good military plans that were not politically expedient for a Republican Whitehouse.  Afterall, wars need to be fought by generals, not politicians.

Politicians should only direct diplomatic strategy.  Politics is used to avoid war or end war, never to run a war.

•  Do we need a real iraq strategy group?

  Give me a tip if you think we need an Iraq strategy group comprised of military experts instead of politicians.

  by Thom K in LA on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:27:45 PM PDT

•  the Hillary angle is interesting

  If Hillary were a political newcomer espousing the positions she claims to espouse, she'd probably be pretty acceptable to a broad range of moderate Republiicans.  Yet it seems she's one of the most reviled Democrats among Republicans, despite being very far from any sort of hardcore leftist.  I guess that's what baggage does...

  by Delirium on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:28:08 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, she is very polarizing

    My perception, right or wrong, is that Senator Clinton is more interested in being president for her own power rather than the good of the country.  

    If she were interested in the good of the country then why didn't she run in 2004?  Is it because many Democrats didn't feel that a Democratic candidate would win in 2004 so they didn't want to risk a run?

    by Thom K in LA on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:31:54 PM PDT

    •  Ok, this might be a semi-stupid question, but . .

      its a question in earnest. Now, I was around for the Clinton years, but I was in my early 20's and not all that political. But I remember all the scandals and investigations and all that. But what I DON'T remember is what Hillary did to become public enemy #1 with the repubs. Nor what Bill did. They see them and they see Satan. Now, I like Bill, and Hillary has her merits, though in a much more limited sense than Bill. But they simply aren't extreme enough, in any ways, to be plausible candidates for ANYONE'S satan. I mean, they're radical centrists, triangulators, etc (even though they DO have progressive instincts buried to varying extents).

      The only thing I could ever figure out why the repubs dislike some dems, but LOATHE the clintons, is because Bill was such a skilled communicator that he outfoxed them at nearly every turn with the electorate, and stole power from them. Even that's debatable come '94. But then you'd figure they'd hate him more than Hillary, but they really hate her much more. Is is just because she's a woman?

      Maybe my memory's a little shoddy and I need reminding. Or maybe it IS all that flimsy.

      Not that I want Hillary for president. Among many other sins, she voted for the war. If I could tell that there were no weapons in Iraq, without the extra intelligence the repubs said they had, simply by the way the repubs were ACTING, so could she.

      by from the puggle on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 11:50:08 PM PDT

      •  why do they hate hillary THAT much??!

        sorry, that question in need of answering might've gotten lost in the verbal diarahrea of my preceding comment . ..  

        by from the puggle on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 11:51:17 PM PDT

•  It's Not a War At All. We Won the War.

  The Commander-in-Chief himself said so when he pronounced that the coalition "has prevailed."

  What failed is 'occupation.' That's only a partly military matter, it's strongly political as well.

  by Gooserock on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:29:24 PM PDT

  •  I guess why I'm pushing the military angle

    is because I think any general with a shred of common sense will say that this isn't winnable and that we need to redploy outside of Iraq within the next six months.

    And it seems like such an easy argument to win with the American people when you can say that this is what the generals are telling us about the situation in Iraq.  Who would you believe, the generals or the president?

    by Thom K in LA on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:35:56 PM PDT

•  Obama's peaking too soon

  Anyone generating this much heat this far out is just going to burn up.

  Remember the Dean wave?

  This guy's got a HUGE future, but I have doubts that '08 will be his year.  But if it's going to happen, he needs to do something to cool off his image a bit.

  The flame that burns twice as brightly burns half as long.

  by Jon Stafford on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:29:50 PM PDT

  •  If the fuel is there, the flame will

    continue to burn twice as bright.

    by bloomer 101 on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:32:23 PM PDT

    •  Maybe, but...

      less than one-term senator?  I don't know.  He still seems like a long shot.

      Still, even if he loses he just increases his name recognition, so I guess he has nothing to lose.

      by Jon Stafford on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:35:07 PM PDT

  •  But if he can maintain this level

    of positive interest, he's a shoe-in.  Big if.  Big shoes.

    by Bob Love on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 09:16:33 PM PDT

•  Lots of talk about Obama...

  and a Gore/Obama ticket is real popular these days (hours).  Let us think carefully...this republic is in jeopardy and we have an unprecidented opportunity to save everything the founding fathers fought for.  And I am convinced Obama will be part of that salvation.

  by bloomer 101 on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:30:39 PM PDT

  •  And Gore needs ... Illinois? n/t

    by Bob Love on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 09:17:28 PM PDT

•  Grammas for Obama!

  I like the idea of an army of Grammas campaigning for Obama.

  :-)

  by kath25 on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:36:24 PM PDT

•  This is interesting ...

  on multiple levels ...

  But war is a political act -- and one must have political leaders involved in warfighting.

  But, it is a delicate minuet between the general and politician in finding an effective balance. There are "political" decisions, with implications beyond the warfighting. For example, during the Kosovo war, the decision was not to escalate into Macedonia so as to not have the Macedonians turn to support of Serbia in the warfighting.  This was a political decision that had real warfighting impact and there were generals who chafed at these restrictions.  But, there is no doubt in mind that the long term was better served by the political decision than would have been served by following the flag officers' desires.

  Problem is not, writ large, Bush's involvement in decisions related to warfighting, but his (and his cronies) arrogant and utter incompetence.

  by besieged by bush on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:38:42 PM PDT

  •  You have a good point that it is a balancing act

    I think we lost that balance when the generals were ignored for political reasons. I quickly read the bios of the Iraq Study Group and there weren't any military leaders on there as far as I could see.  I didn't even see a reference to any of them having served before.

    The political decision seems to still be hanging on whether we should stay or whether we should go.  With the majority of politicians seeming to have arrived at the concensus we should stay without a timetable. I'll believe differently when I see Congress pass a timetable.

    So let's hear what the generals say without their muzzles.  American voters and especially our soldiers deserve to hear the unvarnished truth about what our military options are in regards to Iraq.

    by Thom K in LA on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:46:49 PM PDT

    •  Excellent point ...

      How might the ISG been different with General Tony Zinni (former CENTCOM) on it, for example?  Should we mention Clark? Or, otherwise ...

      Excellent point ... was the ISG filled with Chickenhawks like Baker?

      by besieged by bush on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:51:34 PM PDT

      •  Here's the link to the Iraq Study Group members

        http://www.usip.org/...

        by Thom K in LA on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:54:17 PM PDT

        •  Several have military experience ...

          Ed Meese;

          Meese is a graduate of Yale University, Class of 1953, and holds a law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. He is a retired colonel in the United States Army Reserve.

          Panetta

          Panetta is the author of Bring Us Together (1971), an account of his experiences at the U.S. Office for Civil Rights. He earned a B.A. magna cum laude and a J.D. from Santa Clara University, where he was an editor of the Law Review. He served as a first lieutenant in the Army from 1964 to 1966 and received the Army Commendation Medal.

          William Perry

          From 1946 to 1947, Perry was an enlisted man in the Army Corps of Engineers, and served in the Army of Occupation in Japan. He joined the Reserve Officer Training Corps in 1948 and was a second lieutenant in the Army Reserves from 1950 to 1955.

          by besieged by bush on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 09:06:07 PM PDT

          •  Sorry, I missed those when skimming

            Does anyone know the political bent of these folks who were on the Military Senior Advisory Panel for the ISG?

            Military Senior Advisor Panel

               * Admiral James O. Ellis, Jr.
                 United States Navy, Retired
               * General John M. Keane
                 United States Army, Retired
               * General Edward C. Meyer
                 United States Army, Retired
               * General Joseph W. Ralston
                 United States Air Force, Retired
               * Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz, Sr.
                 United States Army, Retired

            by Thom K in LA on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 09:12:15 PM PDT

            •  admiral ellis gives us wonder woman cuffs

              nuthin's gettin' through on this caped crusader's watch.

              Admiral James O. Ellis, Jr., is Commander, United States Strategic Command.

              Command mission areas include full-spectrum global strike, space operations, computer network operations, Department of Defense information operations, strategic warning, integrated missile defense, and global C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance), and specialized expertise to the joint warfighter.

              (department of defense)
              
              
              © 2006 back in the cave
              

              by Back in the Cave on Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 06:52:32 AM PDT

            •  the big military insurance takeover

              john keane is one of the more powerful men behind the scenes in our country.  dark emperor kind of guy.  (love ye, johnny :)

              to say he sits on the council on foreign relations is plenty to let you know the kind of cat he is, but . . .

              he's also on the DOD policy board with people like richard pearle.  a spoonful of tough love from the CFR tank. the DOD policy board fills the teleprompter for the secretary of defense, so to speak.  real guy behind the guy kind of stuff.

              i didn't mention that he's also a director on the board of general dynamics (general dynamics), the sixth biggest defense contractor in the world . . . wonder if he fair balances as a rotating director of greenpeace or something . . .

              and since retiring from "active duty," he's found a new racket: the insurance biz.  sits on the board of directors to met life.  funny. i would be sooooo interested to learn all the ways it could benefit an insurance company to have this war hawk on their board. (metlife)

              so, he's a hawk.  surprise, huh?

              well, he's also a moron enabler -- on the board of directors with the george c marshall foundation. they're the group that supported reagan's star wars crap and now lead the fight do debunk global warming and climate change? (exxonsecrets)
              
              
              © 2006 back in the cave
              

              by Back in the Cave on Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 07:31:28 AM PDT

•  I know that Obama

  (who is one of my Senators, BTW,) is something of a polarizing figure on this site, and understandably so.
  But I have my own Obama story.
  I have an older sister who has remained true to her liberal family roots.  Her husband, however, has moved further and further to the right as the years have passed.  He's not a dittohead, mind you, but his transformation is unmistakeable.
  During this past Democratic convention my sister and her husband were vacationing.  They were watching the convention on the TV in their hotel room.
  My sister left to do some laundry in the facility the hotel had for guests on their floor.
  She came back into the room to find her husband in front of the TV, with tears streaming down her face.
  She asked him what was going on.
  "I just saw the first black President of the United States," he said through his tears.
  Obama may have disappointed many with his voting record so far, myself included.
  But this man moves people.
  That is not to be discounted.

  by jazzmaniac on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:45:28 PM PDT

  •  Exactly what I've been hearing!

    I've talked to many people from different areas around the country and they are all saying the same thing.  They like Obama.  

    If he ends up being the frontrunner, so be it.  Any Democrat will be better than a Republican.  But without a truely progressive Democratic Congress nothing progressive will be accomplished no matter how progressive the president is.

    by Thom K in LA on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:51:27 PM PDT

  •  When

    I first saw Barack Obama speak, it was at a forum in something like December 2003--way before anyone outside of Illinois political junkies or UChicago law students knew anything about him.  Every candidate from both major parties were there.  I, along with two or three friends who came with me, had no particular expectations.

    Obama made everyone else on the stage look like a child.

    And, in December 2003, we looked at each other and speculated that he might be president some day.

    A lot of people have stories like this.

    I don't mean to minimize the importance of policy--and Obama is right on the vast majority of policy, as far as I'm concerned--but I don't think anyone should downplay Obama's power to move people.  There is charisma, something Bill Clinton had, and then there is what Obama has.  I'm not sure what you'd call it, but it's an entirely different animal.

    As for the "flavor of the month" allegations: Obama has been the flavor of the month in Illinois for about 30 months now.  I think it's time we might reconsider that label.

    Forgive me for gushing.

    by oshkeoto on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 09:01:02 PM PDT

  •  I felt the same way

    . . . when I first saw the Obama speech at the convention on TV, I remember saying it outloud, "this guy's gonna be president someday." Very nonchalant, but very confident as well.

    And I know there are lots of naysayers. But I think this guy could usher in a sea change. Any other democrat would be seen as an extension of the democrats of the past. As another diarist said, for good or for ill, Obama will be percieved as a America starting with a clean slate, nominating a visionary as its first black president, someone who can channel hope the way cheney can channel fear. If Obama suceeds, he could do what Bush has done the first half of - putting neoconservatism in the political wilderness where it belongs, and end for good  its steady rise since Reagan.

    I'm not saying he's the most progressive. But I think he DOES have strong progressive principles. Sure I'd love to have Feingold, but that'd require a very different country than the one we have.

    Obama, I think, can heal THIS America. Americans WANT to feel good about themselves again. They need a man of hope to do that.

    by from the puggle on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 11:43:30 PM PDT

  •  What has been so disappointing about his ...

    voting record?  In 2006, he was the [http://www.oursenators.com/partisan.html?year=2006&broad= 10th most liberal member of the Senate].  On the 2006 votes, he was more liberal than Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, and most of the other Senate Democrats.  In 2005, he was in a 3-way tie for being the 17th most liberal member of the Senate.

    by leevank on Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 04:53:16 AM PDT

•  This Idea that Obama Can Win

  seems like some kind of Millenarian prophecy to me, like the return of the Atlanteans. I get the feeling that the opposition would love to see us annoint Obama as our candidate.

  by greatwhitebuffalo on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 09:08:53 PM PDT

  •  And why CAN'T he win? (n/t)

    by leevank on Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 04:54:19 AM PDT